National Security Newshttps://www.aclu.org/news/all/feed/national-security
enSenators From Both Parties Back ACLU, New York Times in FOIA Lawsuit for Drone Memoshttps://www.aclu.org/national-security/senators-both-parties-back-aclu-new-york-times-foia-lawsuit-drone-memos
Four Senators File Brief Calling for Release of Memos Authorizing “Targeted Killing” of U.S. Citizens

NEW YORK – A bipartisan group of senators filed a brief late last night in federal appeals court in support of the American Civil Liberties Union and The New York Times’ lawsuits seeking Justice Department legal memos on U.S. targeted killing operations.

Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), and Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) wrote in their friend-of-the-court brief that they supported the Freedom of Information Act lawsuits because they believe the government should not be creating a body of “secret law” concerning the extrajudicial killing of American citizens.

The senators wrote that they are “deeply concerned that the Executive Branch’s excessive secrecy is frustrating the purposes of FOIA and impeding a healthy debate on an issue of paramount importance: when the Government may use drone strikes to kill one of its own citizens without charge or trial.”

Last summer, as the result of an earlier appeal in the case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit published a July 2010 memo from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel. Soon after that, the government released a February 2010 OLC memo and a May 2011 white paper. But many parts of these documents, including sections containing constitutional analysis and a long section discussing factual background, were redacted.

In this second appeal to the 2nd Circuit, the appeals court is considering the government’s refusal to release additional memos as well as the lawfulness of the redactions in the documents already released. Simultaneously, the district court is considering the withholding of other documents by the OLC, CIA, and Department of Defense.

“The drone memos should be public,” said ACLU Deputy Legal Director Jameel Jaffer, who argued the earlier appeal before the 2nd Circuit. “While the government has a legitimate interest in protecting intelligence sources and methods, it has no legitimate interest in creating a body of secret law. As the senators rightly point out, the secrecy surrounding the drone program makes it impossible for the public to assess the lawfulness of one of the government’s most controversial national security policies.”

The government carried out the killing of U.S. citizen Anwar al-Aulaqi in a strike that also killed U.S. citizen Sameer Khan. Two weeks later, the government carried out another strike that killed al-Aulaqi’s 16-year old son Abdulrahman, also an American.

The ACLU’s FOIA lawsuit seeks documents related to the legal and factual bases for the government’s killing of the three Americans. The New York Times submitted overlapping FOIA requests, and the two resulting lawsuits were combined.

The senators, who are represented by the law firm Gibbons PC, wrote that they were filing in the case “both to ensure that lawmakers are better able to monitor and check excesses and abuses by the Executive Branch and to ensure that the public has enough information to hold its Government accountable.”

WASHINGTON – The Obama administration sent proposed legislation authorizing the use of military force against ISIS to Congress today. The administration has been conducting airstrikes against ISIS since August 8, 2014, but Congress has not yet voted on whether to authorize the campaign.

Christopher Anders, senior legislative counsel with the American Civil Liberties Union, had this reaction:

Among Congress’s constitutional authorities, there is none more important than the authority to declare war. While the administration’s proposal is a constructive one, it lacks crucial limitations. It fails to make clear that the proposed authorization will be the exclusive authority for the use of military force against ISIS, which leaves open the possibility that the executive branch will continue to rely inappropriately on the authorization that Congress passed in 2001. It lacks any geographic limitation, which means that the executive branch may interpret it to authorize the use of force far from the battlefield in Iraq. It also fails to state clearly the specific objective for which military force is being authorized, and so gives no clear picture of what it would mean to ‘win.’ If Congress grants any new authority for the use of military force, the authority must be significantly more specific and limited than the authority the administration has proposed.

NEW YORK – In a first, a book written by a Guantánamo prisoner was published today in the United States and several other countries.

Mauritanian citizen Mohamedou Ould Slahi has been at the detention camp since 2002, and the U.S. has never charged him with a crime. The book, “Guantánamo Diary,” is a first-person account of his rendition, torture, and interrogations, as well as day-to-day life and personal relationships at Guantánamo.

The American Civil Liberties Union is part of the legal team representing Slahi in his legal fight to be set free. In 2010, a federal district court judge ordered him released, but the Obama administration successfully appealed. The case was sent back to the district court with instructions to use looser standards to decide whether someone can be held, and the matter is now awaiting further action from the court.

“Today we’re glad that Mohamedou Slahi’s book is being released, and we hope that soon he will be free,” said Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU National Security Project and one of Slahi’s lawyers. “With grace and humanity, the book tells the gut-wrenching story of an innocent man who has been tortured and held unlawfully for over a decade. Sadly, there are many more men like Mohamedou locked up under an unjust and counterproductive regime.”

To coincide with the book’s publication, the ACLU has launched a “Free Slahi” campaign on Facebook and Twitter. British publisher Canongate and The Guardian created a website featuring animated passages from the book narrated by Dominic West of “The Wire” as well as audio readings from actors Colin Firth, Stephen Fry, and others. A public reading tonight in London will include actors Benedict Cumberbatch and Jude Law and musicians Nick Cave and Brian Eno.

Slahi decided to write down his experiences to assist his lawyers in representing him in the legal challenge to his detention. His writing turned into an extensive memoir because, he said, he wanted the world to know his story. The 466-page handwritten manuscript was classified, and the government only allowed it to be released after a seven-year legal battle. The book is still censored and retains the government’s black redaction bars. Editor Larry Siems added footnotes tying the narrative to publicly available information about Slahi’s ordeal and the Guantánamo prison.

“What do the American people think? I am eager to know,” Slahi wrote. “I would like to believe the majority of Americans want to see Justice done, and they are not interested in financing the detention of innocent people. I know there is a small extremist minority that believes that everybody in this Cuban prison is evil, and that we are treated better than we deserve. But this opinion has no basis but ignorance. I am amazed that somebody can build such an incriminating opinion about people he or she doesn’t even know.”

Slahi was born in Mauritania in 1970, and he won a scholarship to attend college in Germany. In the early 1990s, when al-Qaeda was part of the Afghan anti-communist resistance supported by the U.S., Slahi fought with them. He worked in Germany for several years as an engineer and returned to Mauritania in 2000. The following year, at the behest of the U.S., he was detained by Mauritanian authorities and rendered to a prison in Jordan. Later he was rendered again, first to Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan and finally, in August 2002, to the U.S. prison at Guantánamo, where he was subjected to severe torture.

Slahi was one of two so-called “Special Projects” whose treatment then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld personally approved. The abuse included beatings, extreme isolation, sleep deprivation, sexual molestation, frigid rooms, shackling in stress positions, and death threats against both Slahi and his mother.

The former chief prosecutor for the Guantánamo military commissions, Col. Morris Davis, has said that he was unable to find any crime to charge Slahi with. Another military prosecutor, Lt. Col. Stuart Couch, withdrew from the case after determining that the U.S. military extracted statements from Slahi by torture.

NEW YORK – The American Civil Liberties Union announced a settlement in a major test case challenging the U.S. government's post-9/11 practice of imprisoning Muslim men as material witnesses without any basis for holding them. As part of the settlement, the federal government offered its regrets and agreed to compensate U.S. citizen Abdullah al-Kidd over his arrest and detention as a material witness in the wake of Sept. 11, 2001.

"I am pleased the government has finally acknowledged the trouble it put me through and has compensated me for that trouble. I hope no one else has to go through what I went through," said al-Kidd, a Kansas-born American citizen, father, and graduate of the University of Idaho where he was a star football player.

Al-Kidd was arrested by the FBI in 2003 ostensibly so he would testify as a material witness in the trial of a student who was facing visa fraud charges. He was imprisoned for 16 days, moved to three separate federal detention facilities in three different states, and was sometimes held naked and shackled hand and foot. He was never ultimately called to testify.

The ACLU sued on his behalf in a case that has spanned a decade and included one trip to the U.S. Supreme Court and two trips to the federal court of appeals. In a Jan. 15 letter to al-Kidd, federal officials wrote: "The government acknowledges that your arrest and detention as a witness was a difficult experience for you and regrets any hardship or disruption to your life that may have resulted from your arrest and detention."

The U.S. government and an individual FBI agent named as a defendant also agreed to pay al-Kidd a total of $385,000 as part of the settlement.

"The government systematically abused the material witness process after September 11," said Lee Gelernt, deputy director of the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project. "This settlement and the court opinions detailing the government’s unlawful actions will hopefully deter future such abuses."

ACLU cooperating attorney Michael Wishnie of Yale Law School served as co-counsel, with additional counsel from the ACLU of Idaho, the Law Offices of Cynthia J. Wooley, and Roark Law Firm.

NEW YORK – The American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights Watch sent a letter today to Attorney General Eric Holder urging him to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the crimes detailed in the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report on the CIA’s torture program.

The organizations point out that the information detailed in the report leaves no doubt that crimes were committed as part of the government’s rendition, detention, and interrogation program and that the United States is obligated by both domestic and international law to prosecute such crimes.

The letter stated:

Even though our organizations have dedicated tens of thousands of staff hours to researching, litigating, and advocating on concerns related to torture and other ill-treatment in the RDI program, the depravity of the tactics and immensity of the enterprise still astound us. There is no need to repeat the details in this letter to you, but we believe it is fair to say that many of these crimes would be horrific even if committed by an individual acting alone; but when done as part of a deliberate, coordinated government program, the crimes are more shocking and far more corrosive to U.S. democracy.

Others who have called for a criminal investigation include Juan Mendez, the United Nations special rapporteur on torture;Ben Emmerson, the United Nation’s special rapporteur on human rights and counter-terrorism; Zeid Ra’ad Al-Hussein, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights; and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. Harold Koh, a former legal advisor to the Department of State said there is “more than enough to reopen investigations at the Justice Department to see whether prosecutions are warranted.”

WASHINGTON – CIA Director John Brennan spoke with press today about the Senate Intelligence Committee's report on his agency's program of rendition, secret detention, and torture.

ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero had this reaction:

As the Senate report shows, the CIA used methods that have long been understood to amount to torture. If we don't hold officials accountable for ordering that conduct, our government will adopt these methods again in the future. The fact that President Obama's CIA director believes that these methods remain a policy option for the next administration shows why we need a special prosecutor. We have to ensure that this never happens again.

WASHINGTON – The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence today released the executive summary and findings of its landmark report on the CIA’s rendition, secret detention, and torture program.

The full report was adopted in December 2012 by a bipartisan majority of the committee after nearly five years of investigation. Today’s release comes after long negotiations between the committee and the White House over redactions requested by the CIA.

This is a shocking report, and it is impossible to read it without feeling immense outrage that our government engaged in these terrible crimes. This report definitively drags into the light the horrific details of illegal torture, details that both the Bush and Obama administrations have worked hard to sweep under the rug. The government officials who authorized illegal activity need to be held accountable. The administration’s current position – doing absolutely nothing – is tantamount to issuing tacit pardons. Tacit pardons are worse than formal ones because they undermine the rule of law. The CIA’s wrongful acts violated basic human rights, served as a huge recruiting tool for our enemies, and alienated allies world-wide. Our response to the damning evidence in this report will define us as a nation.

This should be the beginning of a process, not the end. The report should shock President Obama and Congress into action, to make sure that torture and cruelty are never used again. The Department of Justice needs to appoint a special prosecutor to hold the architects and perpetrators of the torture program accountable for its design, implementation, and cover-ups. Congress must assert its constitutional role in the system of checks and balances, and oversee the CIA, which in this report sounds more like a rogue paramilitary group than the intelligence gathering agency that it’s supposed to be. The president needs to use the moral authority of his office to formally recognize both the torture program’s victims and those in government who resisted this shameful and illegal policy.

Over the course of a decade, ACLU FOIA litigation has resulted in the release of the 100,000 pages of documents relating to the torture policies, which are available in a searchable database.

]]>Tue, 09 Dec 2014 11:50:00 -050055826 at https://www.aclu.org12 Nobel Peace Laureates Call on President Obama to Reckon With U.S. Use of Torturehttps://www.aclu.org/national-security/12-nobel-peace-laureates-call-president-obama-reckon-us-use-torture
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: 202-417-7547, dcmedia@aclu.org

NEW YORK – Twelve Nobel Peace Prize winners sent a letter to President Obama today calling on the United States to provide full disclosure of the authorization, extent, and use of torture and rendition in the years following 9/11 so that the nation can truly grapple with what was done in its name.

The letter, which includes such notables as Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Jose Ramos-Horta, says that President Obama’s recent admission that the United States engaged in torture is a first step at reckoning but that a great deal more needs to be done, including releasing the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence’s long-awaited report on the CIA’s use of torture.

The Nobel laureates also call on the United States to verify that “black sites” for the use of torture and interrogation abroad have been closed, shutter the Guantanamo Bay prison, and adhere to the Geneva Conventions and the U.N. Convention against Torture.

Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, had this comment:

These men and women of courage and conscience rightly emphasize the historic crossroads our nation faces when the Senate’s landmark torture report is released. The eyes of the world are on President Obama to account for and forever ban the shameful use of torture, cruelty, and indefinite detention. Ordering an end to the CIA’s self-serving fight over redactions in the Senate report would be a good place to start. The laureates’ words are a powerful reminder that when we stray from our values and respect for human rights, the whole world feels the negative effects.

We have reason to feel strongly about torture. Many of us among the Nobel Peace Prize laureates have seen firsthand the effects of the use of torture in our own countries. Some are torture survivors ourselves. Many have also been involved in the process of recovery, of helping to walk our countries and our regions out of the shadows of their own periods of conflict and abuse.

It is with this experience that we stand firmly with those Americans who are asking the US to bring its use of torture into the light of day, and for the United States to take the necessary steps to emerge from this dark period of its history, never to return.

In recent decades, by accepting the flagrant use of torture and other violations of international law in the name of combating terrorism, American leaders have eroded the very freedoms and rights that generations of their young gave their lives to defend. They have again set an example that will be followed by others; only now, it is one that will be used to justify the use of torture by regimes around the world, including against American soldiers in foreign lands. In losing their way, they have made us all vulnerable.

]]>Mon, 27 Oct 2014 00:00:00 -040055300 at https://www.aclu.orgIn First, Government Officially Tells ACLU Clients Their No Fly List Statushttps://www.aclu.org/national-security/first-government-officially-tells-aclu-clients-their-no-fly-list-status
Seven Plaintiffs in ACLU Lawsuit Told That They Can Board Flights, Others Will Be Able to Challenge Inclusion on No Fly List

October 10, 2014

PORTLAND, Ore. – Following a court order, the government today notified seven people who were on the No Fly List that they are cleared to fly.

The six men and one woman are part of an American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit filed in 2010 on behalf of 13 Americans challenging their inclusion on the No Fly List.

A federal judge recently set deadlines ordering the government to notify all of the plaintiffs of their No Fly List status, give reasons to those still on the list, and provide an opportunity for them to challenge those reasons. The first of those deadlines is today, and the government must complete all of the notifications by January 16.

The government has long maintained that it could not tell anyone whether or not they were on the No Fly List or provide reasons for inclusion, claiming that doing so would expose national security secrets, but the court rejected that argument.

“This is a victory for transparency and fairness over untenable government secrecy and stonewalling,” said Hina Shamsi, director of the American Civil Liberties Union National Security Project. “After years of being blacklisted and denied due process, seven of our clients know they can fly again, and the rest will soon be able to fight back against their unjust flying ban.”

Today’s letter from the government informed the seven plaintiffs that they “are not currently on the No Fly List.” One of the plaintiffs notified was Abe Mashal, a U.S. Marine Corps veteran and dog trainer who suffered professionally and personally when he could not travel far from his home in Illinois.

“More than four years ago, I was denied boarding at an airport, surrounded by TSA agents, and questioned by the FBI,” said Mashal. “That day, many freedoms that I took for granted were robbed from me. I was never told why this happened, whether I was officially on the list, or what I could do to get my freedoms back. Now, I can resume working for clients who are beyond driving distance. I can attend weddings, graduations, and funerals that were too far away to reach by car or train. I can travel with my family to Hawaii, Jamaica, or anywhere else on vacation. Today, I learned I have my freedoms back."

In June, U.S. District Court Judge Anna Brown struck down as unconstitutional the government’s system for people to challenge their inclusion on the No Fly List, calling the procedures “wholly ineffective” and a violation of the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of due process. The judge ordered the government to provide meaningful redress, and in August the government publicly committed to reforming the entire redress system.

“The opportunity that the plaintiffs in our case are finally getting to clear their names should be available to everyone on the No Fly List as soon as possible,” said Shamsi.

According to leaked documents published by The Intercept, there were more than 47,000 people on the No Fly List as of August 2013, including 800 Americans. Their only recourse is to file a request with the Department of Homeland Security's Traveler Redress Inquiry Program (DHS TRIP). However, DHS only responds with a letter that merely confirms the request was received and reviewed. The letter does not confirm or deny whether their names are on the No Fly List, explain why they were denied boarding, or indicate whether they can fly.

The documents also showed that in August 2013, there were 680,000 people on the government’s master terrorism watch list; even according to the government’s own records, 280,000 of them have no affiliation with a recognized terrorist group.

The ACLU has criticized the government’s broader terrorism watchlisting system, which includes the No Fly List, as overbroad and an ineffective waste of resources that uses racial and religious profiling instead of hard evidence of actual wrongdoing.

NEW YORK – Twitter sued the government today seeking to make public more information about how much user data it is being forced to hand over on national security grounds.

The government says that Twitter’s transparency reports can address surveillance orders like National Security Letters only in very broad terms – for example, by counting them to the nearest thousand. The company’s lawsuit challenges several secrecy provisions in the relevant laws as unconstitutional.

“Twitter is doing the right thing by challenging this tangled web of secrecy rules and gag orders. If these laws prohibit Twitter from disclosing basic information about government surveillance, then these laws violate the First Amendment. The Constitution doesn’t permit the government to impose so broad a prohibition on the publication of truthful speech about government conduct. We hope that other technology companies will now follow Twitter’s lead. Technology companies have an obligation to protect their customers’ sensitive information against overbroad government surveillance, and to be candid with their customers about how their information is being used and shared.”